Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Cosmological argument.

Cosmological argument.
(05-30-2021, 07:04 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:
(05-29-2021, 07:51 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:
(05-29-2021, 12:12 AM)Dancefortwo Wrote: Science is what you're using to post stuff.  Yes, the computer is a complicated piece of science.  Without science millions more people would have died from Covid.  Science has wiped out Polio. Smallpox is a thing of the past because of science.  Without science and the discovery of penicillin many millions of people would have died from simple infections.  I'm one of them.  Women don't die in childbirth as they did in the past.  Why? Because of science.

Science makes your water drinkable.  Prior to water purfication processes typhoid and cholera  killed millions of people.   One of Abraham's sons died of typhoid. Cancer drugs are extending life, it's more survivable now and some medications are completely wiping out some types of cancer.  All because of science.

By the way, the picture of the thalidimide baby is of course very sad but the drug is today being used to destroy certain kinds of cancers. 

You really are ignorant, aren't you.


Nope. I love science.
Why are you misrepresenting it then?


(05-29-2021, 07:51 PM)Lion IRC Wrote: But there are a lot of (truly ignorant) scientism fanatics making foolish boasts about science versus religion.
There are also a lot of religious fantics making foolish boasts about religion versus science. So what?


(05-29-2021, 07:51 PM)Lion IRC Wrote: Religion boosts lifespan by up to 6.48 years

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177...0618779820
Lets assume, for the sake of the argument, that your claim is true.

Is this what you are trying to tell us?! We should believe in your god, because we will live 6 more years!? Dont you have better arguments?
If a study would show that islam makes people live 10y longer but christianity only 6, would you become a muslim? Would you still love science?

Interesting point Deese.
Looks like Jews and Hindus live the longest.
The unaffiliated (which includes atheists) live longer than Christians. Whistling
https://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirit...expectancy
Reply

Cosmological argument.
This is yet another smokescreen. He "loves" science, or anything else for that matter, as long as it can be used ot support his already established belief.
He didnt come to believe in (his version of) god because of science, and science isnt (part of) the foundation of his belief. Scripture is, and what he has and is been told by others, as per usual.
R.I.P. Hannes
The following 2 users Like Deesse23's post:
  • GenesisNemesis, Dancefortwo
Reply

Cosmological argument.
(05-30-2021, 11:39 AM)Deesse23 Wrote: This is yet another smokescreen. He "loves" science, or anything else for that matter, as long as it can be used ot support his already established belief.
He didnt come to believe in (his version of) god because of science, and science isnt (part of) the foundation of his belief. Scripture is, and what he has and is been told by others, as per usual.

I've seen him make multiple unscientific, typical Creationist claims like "belief in evolution causes immorality!" He doesn't love science.
Sometimes you just have no words all you can do is laugh at the stupidity. Deadpan Coffee Drinker
Reply

Cosmological argument.
(05-30-2021, 03:58 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:
(05-30-2021, 11:39 AM)Deesse23 Wrote: This is yet another smokescreen. He "loves" science, or anything else for that matter, as long as it can be used ot support his already established belief.
He didnt come to believe in (his version of) god because of science, and science isnt (part of) the foundation of his belief. Scripture is, and what he has and is been told by others, as per usual.

I've seen him make multiple unscientific, typical Creationist claims like "belief in evolution causes immorality!" He doesn't love science.

Jesusfuckingchrist, is this guy a creationist?
                                                         T4618
The following 1 user Likes Dancefortwo's post:
  • GenesisNemesis
Reply

Cosmological argument.
(05-30-2021, 04:21 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote:
(05-30-2021, 03:58 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:
(05-30-2021, 11:39 AM)Deesse23 Wrote: This is yet another smokescreen. He "loves" science, or anything else for that matter, as long as it can be used ot support his already established belief.
He didnt come to believe in (his version of) god because of science, and science isnt (part of) the foundation of his belief. Scripture is, and what he has and is been told by others, as per usual.

I've seen him make multiple unscientific, typical Creationist claims like "belief in evolution causes immorality!" He doesn't love science.

Jesusfuckingchrist, is this guy a creationist?

Yup. Believes in Adam and Eve and all that crap. Forgot if he's YEC but pretty sure he is.
Sometimes you just have no words all you can do is laugh at the stupidity. Deadpan Coffee Drinker
Reply

Cosmological argument.
(05-30-2021, 04:24 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:
(05-30-2021, 04:21 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote:
(05-30-2021, 03:58 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote: I've seen him make multiple unscientific, typical Creationist claims like "belief in evolution causes immorality!" He doesn't love science.

Jesusfuckingchrist, is this guy a creationist?

Yup. Believes in Adam and Eve and all that crap. Forgot if he's YEC but pretty sure he is.

Even without the mountain of evidence for evolution, DNA proves evolution happened without any doubt. 

Loin isn't playing with a full deck.   He fell out of the tree of life and hit all the branches on the way down.    He's probably at church right now getting his brain washed.  He'll be back later with his washed brain and spew more nonsense.
                                                         T4618
The following 1 user Likes Dancefortwo's post:
  • GenesisNemesis
Reply

Cosmological argument.
(05-29-2021, 04:18 AM)Lion IRC Wrote:
(05-29-2021, 01:06 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:
(05-27-2021, 09:09 AM)Lion IRC Wrote: Wait. What?
Since when are P1 and P2 using two "very different" meanings of the same verb?

"to begin"

Phrase "begin to exist", not verb. Work on that reading comprehension.

I'm pretty certain that you know what creatio ex nihilo is and how it fundamentally differs from the more mundane creation that we observe at the potter's wheel, but since we're pretending that you don't I'll add the subtext so that the error is obvious:

1. Whatever begins to exist from something else has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist from nothing.
3. Therefore, 1 and 2 form a non sequitur that is glaringly obvious unless you leave out the entire statement in the hope that the criminally gullible might mistake it for valid reasoning.

I've always enjoyed P2 because theists never seem to get the joke, stridently arguing that the universe must have come from nothing whilst simultaneous maintaining that it cannot have come about by nothing. Unsatisfied with merely trying to have a cake and eat it you want to accomplish both simultaneously.

P1 and P2 both use the same verb and the same predicate.
Begin (verb) Exist (predicate)
Neither premiss asserts a specific type of contingency - let alone ambiguous or differing types of contingency. You've added those yourself. And I know why.  Whistling

Of course you know why. It's because you and every other apologist who uses this argument deliberately leaves them out.

For P1 something coming to exist from nothing has never been observed. This is known as the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy.

For P2 the universe coming to exist from nothing is straight from the doctrine of Creatio ex Nihilo (Creation from Nothing), which is precisely what you have been arguing from the start. Arguing that the universe was created from something simply opens the very door to infinite regress that you've been complaining about.

So the non sequitur stands. If not then you can show why.

The Cosmological Argument fails for the very simple reason that its authors were medieval theologists who knew slightly less about cosmology than an oyster does about merchant banking.
The following 2 users Like Paleophyte's post:
  • Deesse23, Bucky Ball
Reply

Cosmological argument.
(05-29-2021, 09:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(05-29-2021, 08:39 PM)Lion IRC Wrote: Deliberately provoking another member.

... is all you do.
Retorts are not really responses.

You should be banned.
You threatened us with eternal damnation.
You lied when you came here about preaching.

What is hysterical tho, is how you destroyed your P1 with your own quote from Hartle.
Great going there, moron.

Yes he should, normally I'm not in favour of banning based on different religious ideological or political grounds it just makes us look as douchey as they are but in liehole and "perc the smurfs" case I think its justified as they've more than proven themselves as total trolls, they are like flies in a kitchen.....  A poison spreading nuisance that makes people sick. Trouble is as retarded as their views and reasoning are they are smart enough to stay just within the rules of the forum, so I suspect we will have to tolerate them spewing liquid pig shit from their mouths onto the forum carpets for some considerable time to come, but, every cloud has a silver lining.....  They are potentially very good sport.
Justaminute   The whole point of having cake is to eat it! 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)